Building a new rig : 980 or 970 ?

[Michael Ray]

I didn't say that the processor in consoles was more powerful - or that consoles will have better computation simply because they have 8 cores, as opposed to the 4 in an i5. I was talking about optimisation. When they make a game, the console is their top priority. As such, since the previous generation only had a few cores, that's what they coded for and, even if your PC had a billion cores, they often didn't even bother to make sure that your PC would use as many of the cores as you had. If the console had two, your PC would use two, even if you had a billion. With current consoles having 8, most games are optimised for 8. So, the games are better optimised for 8 cores vs. 4 cores, regardless of how powerful each core is. Thus, during the last generation of consoles, having more cores in an i7 did not yield any significant benefits (because either they were not being used anyway or [read the next paragraph]), and games are mostly not CPU bound anyways so the difference between an i5 and an i7 was almost negligible in terms of your frame rate. With this generation, that might change.

 

And, it goes beyond mere utilisation. Not only were the extra cores not used in the previous generation but there's also more to it than just enabling the extra cores. They have subroutines, task scheduling, queues and so on which will now all be optimised for 8 cores. That is what will, possibly, allow you to squeeze a lot more performance out of an i7 today than you did during the Xbox 360 and PS3 era.

Current cross-platform games on consoles are not optimized for their 8-Cores because Xbox One does not have a API that utilizes those cores properly or efficiently. Its still using a aged API with minor updates. (DirectX 11.?) That's why it is getting DX12 with-in Windows 10 in which will also address its specific GPU architectures. Its not that developers could not use more CPU cores with PC ports; its more likely they could not use those extra cores/threads in the manner that they needed because the API/Engine did not allow. 

 

Under the DirectX 12 API, developers will allow the game to address and utilize the CPU resources it "needs" to provide the performance and likely better performance than consoles. 

[Michael Ray]

TheConverter : that's what I was talking about. There are so many people out their that LOVE Nvidia, and others who LOVE AMD. My guess is that it all comes down to personnal experience.

 

Maybe instead of just saying that what Nvidia does is shit, you could explain to us your point of you. Why do you think that way ?

 

Also, as I said earlier, even though a 980ti would be great, it is out of my price range, so I won't even consider buying it.

 

About consoles now : what I understand Anonymouse1b, is that a Core i7 is better, not because it is more powerful, but better optimized, is that it ?

 

Many people seem to think that a Core i7 is not necessary, and that a Core i5 is more than sufficient, at least with current games. But an i7 would be better for games to come, as developers will work more and more on those 8 Cores CPU we find in the PS4 and Xbox One.

An i7 and not even an i5 will be necessary for upcoming DirectX 12 titles. A gaming application will only call for the CPU resources that it needs and I highly doubt its need more than 4 Cores/Threads. The consoles will need that many cores because the cores themselves are very weak "Jaguar" mobile cores even when optimized. Not to mention the console CPU in its APU does not work or compute the same way a Intel CPU processes. That is why an i3 beats a AMD Qaud-core APU or FX because its how the architecture works. You do not need 8 people to lift a 50 pound stone unless 1 of those 8 can not do it on its own. 

[MMKing]

The question doesn't make sense to me.

 

The 390 costs about the same as the 970, but performs 5-10% better and has over double the VRam.

 

The 390x cost 70-90USD cheaper than the 980 and performs about the same and it has twice the VRam.

[Anonymous1b]

OK, perhaps I should clarify that I'm not an expert on this issue myself. From what I've read of others, though, the consensus seems to be that the 8 cores in i7 to 8 cores in a console parity will probably give better yields. Beyond that, I'm not really equipped to debate this on a more technical level.

 

From a personal point of view, though, it does make more sense to me. While your 1 person vs. 8 people analogy might seem apt, it's not exactly very relevant. It's not just about how heavy the stone is but also about how the stones are to be laid and what the pattern is. If I design a delivery system that has 8 end users putting the stones into their places, using 8 people gives me the bet efficiency, unless I change my system. I could use 4 but each person will now have to alternate between two positions. So, it's not about how much strength you need but how the actual system is laid out. Most developers don't/won't change all the basic fundamentals of their design for a port. From what I've read of others, that will be the difference that could give you better performance with an i7 with developers focusing on modern consoles. (Please observe how I've always used could or probably each time I've said that.)

[gl3nnn]

Don't get a 970/390 if you can afford the 980. Why settle for the lousier card when you can afford the better one.

[Anonymous1b]

The question doesn't make sense to me.

 

The 390 costs about the same as the 970, but performs 5-10% better and has over double the VRam.

 

The 390x cost 70-90USD cheaper than the 980 and performs about the same and it has twice the VRam.

 

While benchmarks obviously differ between reviewers, the one I consulted, Techspot's, shows that the 980 either matches or commands a sizable lead above the 390X (GTA V, Metro Redux,, for example, but they're matched for the most part). I suppose that was an error on my part. Looking back, I was wrong and the 390 is actually a little faster than the 970 (I said the opposite) and while the 980 doesn't always command a lead over the 390X, it always matches it or leads it, thus being more powerful overall:

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1019-radeon-r9-390x-390-380/

 

As for why I would still not go for an AMD card - and, Antoine, this ties into 

 

Maybe instead of just saying that what Nvidia does is shit, you could explain to us your point of you. Why do you think that way ?

- AMD just has bad driver support. This may, in part, actually be due to NVidia's anti-competitive practices but, when I'm paying $500 for a card, forgive me for not rooting for the underdog. Basically, NVidia has been releasing extra stuff and graphical features, like GameWorks and HairWorks and a bunch of other things, that are increasingly being implemented by developers into their games. These features are, however, heavily criticised for tanking performance (case in point, Arkham Knight), even on NVidia cards. Another point of contention is that NVidia is claimed to have deliberately made it so that they hit AMD cards especially hard.

 

Regardless of who's playing dirty, the fact of the matter remains, AMD is often behind on driver support (they still don't have CrossFire drivers for FreeSync, for example) and whether or not NVidia is playing dirty or not (which is also debatable because these technologies just complement the architecture of GeForce cards, it's not exactly their fault that AMD specialises in other areas), whenever there's a problem, AMD is hit hardest. Take the Arkham Knight fiasco. Both companies' cards suffered but AMD took the brunt of it. As such, I wouldn't recommend AMD at the moment.

[asker509]

If you can buy used i would do that anf get a 980 I have seen a lot of 980s dropping around to $420 used

[Michael Ray]

OK, perhaps I should clarify that I'm not an expert on this issue myself. From what I've read of others, though, the consensus seems to be that the 8 cores in i7 to 8 cores in a console parity will probably give better yields. Beyond that, I'm not really equipped to debate this on a more technical level.

 

From a personal point of view, though, it does make more sense to me. While your 1 person vs. 8 people analogy might seem apt, it's not exactly very relevant. It's not just about how heavy the stone is but also about how the stones are to be laid and what the pattern is. If I design a delivery system that has 8 end users putting the stones into their places, using 8 people gives me the bet efficiency, unless I change my system. I could use 4 but each person will now have to alternate between two positions. So, it's not about how much strength you need but how the actual system is laid out. Most developers don't/won't change all the basic fundamentals of their design for a port. From what I've read of others, that will be the difference that could give you better performance with an i7 with developers focusing on modern consoles. (Please observe how I've always used could or probably each time I've said that.)

Regardless of how CPU will be utilized in both consoles and PC, the developers want to send a lot of the calculations to the GPU in which will, overtime, give the CPU a lot less to do. My analogy was giving a logical point of view with the best illustration I could. Console will not provide too much of a visual difference than PC ports because it would cause the developers to not receive a potentially hefty profit from the PC community that seems to be growing. I do not think developers would shoot themselves in the foot again this generation as they did the last. 

 

DirectX 12 will provide essential tools to help developers make easier PC port which in turn save money and time. Im pretty sure than if developers optimize the use of 8-Cores in these consoles down the line then they will find quick and easy presets in their Engines to utilize the CPU cores/threads in PC ports. I would assume that the weaker mobile 8-Core CPU in consoles is on par with or slightly behind a much stronger 4-Core/Thread Intel/AMD FX desktop CPU. 

[TheConverter]

TheConverter : that's what I was talking about. There are so many people out their that LOVE Nvidia, and others who LOVE AMD. My guess is that it all comes down to personnal experience.

 

Maybe instead of just saying that what Nvidia does is shit, you could explain to us your point of you. Why do you think that way ?

 

Also, as I said earlier, even though a 980ti would be great, it is out of my price range, so I won't even consider buying it.

 

About consoles now : what I understand Anonymouse1b, is that a Core i7 is better, not because it is more powerful, but better optimized, is that it ?

 

Many people seem to think that a Core i7 is not necessary, and that a Core i5 is more than sufficient, at least with current games. But an i7 would be better for games to come, as developers will work more and more on those 8 Cores CPU we find in the PS4 and Xbox One.

 

Because Nvidia sucks in giving their cards good prices. AMD has now better cards in each section of the market except the enthousiast class where the 980Ti beats the Fury X.

 

I'm now back to Nvidia as I just upgraded from a R9 290 to a 980Ti. I must say that Nvidia does a better job at drivers and features but with more crashes/glitches/artifacts.

I really love DSR, I can now game in 5K dowscaled to my 1440P monitor or in 8K downscaled to my 4K tv. My R9 290 only went up to 3200x1800.

[antoine5555]

The debate between Nvidia and AMD seems endless. My guess is that I won't ever have a definitive answer.

 

Here is a summary of what I can here pretty much everywhere : Nvidia cards are more stable, maybe a bit more powerful. AMD cards are the best value. Both brands will bring great gaming experience.

 

Now for the rest, I can't say. Everybody have their views on this, which varies from one user's experience to another. Often, one bad experience with a product is enough for a user to completely stop using a brand, even though it says everywhere else it is a great product.

 

To those of you who criticize one brand or the other, I'm not saying you're lying. But I can't just base my decision on your opinion, as I will always get the opposite one anyway. It doesn't make me less grateful for the help you're offering though ;-)

 

So I'll have to make a choice on my own. And I'm gonna go with the 980. I've had some friends using Nvidia cards, and they never reported anything wrong with it. It is very powerful, and even a bit future proof, which is what I'm looking for, and despite the fact that it is not the best value, you should see this as me making a gift to myself.

 

It is after all my first true gaming pc, so why not be a bit crazy if I can afford it ;-)

 

Now, the CPU. And I'm lost again ^^

 

I don't know much about the latest consoles CPU. I've heard many times that the best Core i5s have no reason to be envious of the Core i7s, but I just wonder if an i7 would bring a bit more punch, and if it really is more future proof with upcoming games.

[TheConverter]

 

So I'll have to make a choice on my own. And I'm gonna go with the 980. I've had some friends using Nvidia cards, and they never reported anything wrong with it. It is very powerful, and even a bit future proof, which is what I'm looking for, and despite the fact that it is not the best value, you should see this as me making a gift to myself.

 

 

980, the card that was death since release, and even more death after release of 980Ti,Fury-X and R9 390X.

 

At 500$, you could get two Tri-X R9 290: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202143

[sgloux3470]

An overclocked 970 can match or even slightly exceed a stock or mildly factory overclocked 980 at 1080p.  But the 980 itself is no slouch in overclocking.

 

I think if you're going to spend the extra money on an overpriced 970, then get the 980.  When overclocked it will maintain a healthy lead over the 970.

 

There are better options for 1080p gaming though.

[Prysin]

For the CPU, what you need is an i5 4690k. It will give you all the performance you can possibly ask for in GAMES. BUT, if you want to do MORE then games, like live stream to Twitch while playing games, while listening to spotify and talking with your friends at teamspeak (do you even multitask bro?). Then you need an i7 4790k....

 

And you got it slightly wrong with the Nvidia vs AMD thing....

 

The two trades blows performance wise, and lately even driver wise (mostly cuz AMD is getting their shit together while Nvidia has been taking a dump for a couple of months).

In general, AMD prices their cards more aggressively while Nvidia charges a premium because well... Nvidia.

 

Nvidia is sort of the Apple of graphics cards. They will charge you extra for features that when presented seems like a life changing and life defining experience. In reality, its a nice thing to have, but you sort doesnt need it. You can easily get by without HALF of what Nvidia offers you (same can be said about AMD, albeit a few of their stuff is actually good and practical in everyday use)

 

 

Console CPUs are made by AMD, the current generation of consoles, eg. PS4, XBONE and WII U is using a custom AMD APU. It has 8 jaguar 35-50w laptop cores with 20 GPU cores, albeit only 18 of them do actual graphical rendering while 2 of them is used for something else that i never really understood the point behind.....

The way the console APUs work is very similar to AMDs desktop APU system, such as the 7850k, which is a brilliant product btw.

 

The 980 is a solid choice, make sure to get one with a good cooler, such as EVGAs SSC ACX2.0, Gigabyte G1 Gaming or you can just buy a reference model then get a NZXT G10 + NZXT Kraken x31 and have a liquid cooled 980 ready to be massively overclocked.

[TheConverter]

For the CPU, what you need is an i5 4690k. It will give you all the performance you can possibly ask for in GAMES. BUT, if you want to do MORE then games, like live stream to Twitch while playing games, while listening to spotify and talking with your friends at teamspeak (do you even multitask bro?). Then you need an i7 4790k....

 

And you got it slightly wrong with the Nvidia vs AMD thing....

 

The two trades blows performance wise, and lately even driver wise (mostly cuz AMD is getting their shit together while Nvidia has been taking a dump for a couple of months).

In general, AMD prices their cards more aggressively while Nvidia charges a premium because well... Nvidia.

 

Nvidia is sort of the Apple of graphics cards. They will charge you extra for features that when presented seems like a life changing and life defining experience. In reality, its a nice thing to have, but you sort doesnt need it. You can easily get by without HALF of what Nvidia offers you (same can be said about AMD, albeit a few of their stuff is actually good and practical in everyday use)

 

 

Console CPUs are made by AMD, the current generation of consoles, eg. PS4, XBONE and WII U is using a custom AMD APU. It has 8 jaguar 35-50w laptop cores with 20 GPU cores, albeit only 18 of them do actual graphical rendering while 2 of them is used for something else that i never really understood the point behind.....

The way the console APUs work is very similar to AMDs desktop APU system, such as the 7850k, which is a brilliant product btw.

 

The 980 is a solid choice, make sure to get one with a good cooler, such as EVGAs SSC ACX2.0, Gigabyte G1 Gaming or you can just buy a reference model then get a NZXT G10 + NZXT Kraken x31 and have a liquid cooled 980 ready to be massively overclocked.

 

Yeah, but at the moment the 980 is just priced wrong. He could get massively more FPS with two R9 290's. 

 

You Americans are lucky to have such cheap prices...

[Prysin]

Yeah, but at the moment the 980 is just priced wrong. He could get massively more FPS with two R9 290's. 

 

You Americans are lucky to have such cheap prices...

i dun live in the US. I live in norway. IN which case the prices i experience is closer to 650USD for a 980 and closer to 800-850 USD for a 980Ti

[Monarch]

An i7 and not even an i5 will be necessary for upcoming DirectX 12 titles. A gaming application will only call for the CPU resources that it needs and I highly doubt its need more than 4 Cores/Threads.

 

That is not true. It's important to understand what DX12 will do and what it will not do. It will reduce API overhead and it will enable multiple cores to talk to the GPU. It will only improve performance in cases where the amount of draw calls were the bottleneck.

 

Games are getting more and more complex, with a lot of things going on. There's a lot of work for the CPU to do per frame in latest titles. Let me give you an example. In Witcher 3 I go to Novigrad, which is like a big medieval city, with a ton of NPCs. My 4670K at 4.5 GHz hits 100% usage on all cores and my framerate tanks. DX12 would not fix this. Why? Because the bottleneck are not draw calls. If they were, only 1 core would be hitting 100%, since we know that in DX11, only 1 core can talk to the GPU. 

Another example is BF4. My 4670K sometimes hits 100% usage on all 4 cores on 64-player servers. I'm 100% positive DX12 wouldn't help. How do I know this? Well BF4 happens to support Mantle, which does the same thing as DX12. I saw almost no improvement with Mantle. Maybe 1, 2 fps or so. This is because it's not draw calls that are the issue. The CPU is obviously not capable of processing everything else to make use of the extra draw calls DX12 enables. And most of the draw call improvement comes from issuing draw calls from multiple cores, and an i5 is already choking on physics, AI, etc. on the other cores.

[Spartan8271]

You should just get a r9 390X it'll be the best bet you'll get 980 performance and 8gb vram here's one I'd recommend http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=N82E16814127872

[Anonymous1b]

I think you are mostly done, then, right? You've already got the GPU and Monarch gives a good reason for going with the i7.

[seardtuna]

Go with an R9 390 or 390X. They offer performance in the middle of the 970 and 980. If you are doing any video editing or rendering, go with the 390x as it has more stream processors, but for just gaming go with the 390. 

[antoine5555]

I won't get two Tri-X R9 290. Keep in mind that I live in France, prices are higher here. One of those cost around 380 euros, which is about 420 dollars. If I had that much to spend on the GPU, I would spend it on a 980ti or something similar.

 

The 980 that I selected so far, the MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G, costs around 640 dollars.

 

You Americans are indeed lucky to have such lower prices. Once again, us Europeans are getting robbed for that kind of stuff. Your Xbox One or PS4 is 350 dollars I believe, ours are 400 euros, which is 440 dollars... Thank you Microsoft and Sony !

 

Streaming is not something that I'll do, but listening to music, browsing the internet, maybe downloading stuff, talking to friends etc, is something I'll do, so yes, a Core i7 would be a good choice.

 

A R9 390X is something that I considered, but I've heard so many different opinions about it that I don't know what to think anymore. It is undoubtedly very powerful, but something that I hear everywhere is that Nvidia cards are better for overclocking, which is a thing that I might consider in a few years.

 

Anyway, though I'm pretty sure I will go with a 980, I still have a month or two before I buy anything. So keep hoping, maybe you could change my mind ^^